image_pdfimage_print

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The news out of Hollywood these days reads like an Anthony Weiner fanfic. Celebrities, producers, and directors are being slapped with accusations of sexual misconduct at a rate that boggles the mind, but keeps tabloids and their online contemporaries very happy.

Now, what does any of this have to do with politics, you might ask. The answer can be found in three little words: listen and believe. The judges would have also accepted “bat shit crazy.” To give a bit of context, modern feminists developed the concept of listen and believe as a means to help women come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against men. With the current situation in Hollywood, however, it may not be a good time for feminists to mention it.

Which means it’s the perfect time for us to talk about it.

listen and believe

What the Left believes it means – taking a woman’s allegations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct seriously by paying attention and accepting what she says as true

What it really means – Screw due process! The allegation is more important than the facts!

As serious as allegations of sexual assault/misconduct and rape are, it should be common sense to take our time and sift through the evidence to verify the validity of the allegations. Unfortunately, the Left isn’t on speaking terms with common sense these days. Hence, listen and believe.

On the surface, it’s easy to grasp the need to listen to sexual assault victims. These men and women are fragile and may be frightened out of their minds at the prospect of having to open up to anyone about what amounts to the worst possible violation of one’s self. It’s important we do listen. But believing them without a second thought? That’s a little dangerous in today’s society where lying is acceptable to more and more people and narcissism is at an all time high.

And there is no better way to get positive attention for yourself than to be a victim, or pretend to be one.

That’s where listen and believe comes into play. It feeds into a person’s ego to not just be heard, but to automatically be seen as credible without having to go through the efforts to build credibility. After all, there’s Tweeting about celebrities to do, and that’s soooooo much more important than the truth!

That brings us back around to Hollyweird. The Left has it on lockdown, and it is safe to say they would agree with the concept of listen and believe as a means to fight the patriarchy or some such. Ah, but now…well, let’s just say there might be a few more Leftists who are rethinking whether it’s a good idea to be believed merely by making an allegation. It might lead to the need for a SuperMax prison in Beverly Hills otherwise.

Wait. If accusations would be enough to get someone thrown in jail, I could prevent Michael Bay from ever making another movie! And wouldn’t that be a win-win for everyone?

Seriously, the current situation in Hollywood reveals the main problem with listen and believe: it seems to be ideologically driven. The end goal of modern feminists isn’t equality, as they claim ad nauseum. Their end goal is the marginalization of men, even men who support modern feminism, and listen and believe helps bring about that end goal. If all you need to do to make men look like Bill Clinton on Spanish Fly and Viagra is to get enough people to believe it by playing on their emotions, modern feminists will jump at that chance every single time.

Except when it comes to powerful allies like…oh, I don’t know…Hollywood big wigs. Modern feminists beat the drum of an epidemic of campus rape more than Neil Peart during a solo, but not many have come forward to denounce the Hollywood Left when there’s more actual evidence of sexual misconduct there than there is on college campuses today.

Waiting for modern feminists to be vocal and consistent on a matter like this is like waiting for Hillary Clinton to blame herself for her 2016 Presidential loss. It may happen, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

In the meantime, we can put our time to good use by insisting on following the rule of law instead of the rule of an emotional mob. Once anyone is accused of sexual assault/misconduct, there is often irreparable damage to that person’s reputation, so it’s vital we get the facts right the first time. When we deviate from that standard, it doesn’t end well.

Just ask Rolling Stone.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Last week, the Left were giddy with anticipation with the news special counsel Robert Mueller was going to announce indictments in relation to his investigation into whether Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russians. And with the indictments of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, the Left were happier than Bill Clinton at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch while Hillary is on her book tour. They even have a term for Mueller’s investigation: Mueller Time. They’ve even printed t-shirts with the slogan, so you know they’re serious.

Of course, the enthusiasm has dulled somewhat now that it’s come out the scope of the investigation into Manafort’s involvement with Russia was when he was working…with the Democratic National Committee. But just you wait! Mueller is going to reveal the collusion between Trump and Russia just like Scooby and the Mystery Machine gang!

Meanwhile, let’s talk about “Mueller Time” for a bit.

Mueller Time

What the Left believes it means – a federal investigation into whether Donald Trump conspired with Russia to win the 2016 election

What it really means – spending federal money on an investigation that has zero basis in fact

I know it’s shocking to think a federal government that spent money on a bridge to nowhere, a money pit in Boston, and stealth bombers that don’t exist would waste money on an investigation that would make Don Quixote tell you to cool it with the cray-cray, but it’s true. The whole basis of the Mueller investigation is a poorly-sourced assumption driven by fever-pitch partisanship in the hopes of finding something, anything that can be tied back to the President in the hopes the 2016 election can be nullified and Hillary Clinton can be installed as President.

Meanwhile in the real world, some of us are shaking our heads and/or laughing said heads off at the sight of Leftists clinging to their anti-Trump fantasies in light of factual information.

Let me be perfectly clear here. I believe Russia may have had an impact on the 2016 election, but as of this writing, the credible impact appears on the Left not the Right. Of the two major party candidates, only Hillary Clinton received direct money from Russia in the form of a donation to the Clinton Global Initiative from Ukraine. Although it wasn’t a direct donation to her campaign, it is still a financial contribution to Hillary Clinton through a layer of plausible deniability via bureaucracy.

Of course, there are other ways Russia could have impacted our election, such as through Facebook ads and other propaganda purchased by Russians. One tiny problem: Mueller Time isn’t going into that depth, at least not yet. Even if they paid for agitprop, so what? It’s not like every voter is spoon-fed information from partisan sources. That’s strictly a Leftist thing. Besides, if we really want to go down that rabbit hole, we would have to go after just about every major media outlet for colluding with Hillary’s campaign by giving her mostly softball questions no tougher than “Where would you like us to kiss your butt today, Madame President?”

Which brings us back to Mueller Time. The investigation may open up far more than the Left wants us to know, such as…oh, I don’t know…the Clinton campaign having more actual hands-on contact with the Russians than the Trump campaign. That would explain why the Left’s argument regarding the Trump dossier went from “We need to find out everything in the dossier” to “We don’t need to know who paid for it, just whether it’s accurate.” And even that doesn’t get the Left out of the woods. If Mueller’s investigation proves the Left was in Vladimir Putin’s back pocket so much Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has permanent stitch marks on her butt, the narrative will switch to “This subject is boring. Let’s focus on Trump’s connections to Russia!”

In any case, the Mueller investigation will continue on with or without my support (but will continue with my money) and we will be in for…well, something that will be more disappointing than a striptease from Lena Dunham. Whatever happens, the Left will try to put on a brave face and spin every little indiscretion into a major scandal, but for those of us on the outside of the Leftist bubble, it will be like opening the biggest package under the Christmas tree and finding it full of the ugliest sweaters, socks, and underwear.

But for you Leftists out there hoping Mueller Time will get you into the White House, you’d be better off joining a tour group.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Remember when the Left was obsessed with President Donald Trump’s connections to Russia waaaaaay back a whole week or so ago? Well, this past week has blunted that enthusiasm now that there are alleged connections between Russia and the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Now, they want us to ignore their possible crimes to focus on the crimes they’ve alleged President committed.

What is at the core of both of these situations? Leftist double standards, for one, but I’m referring to Russia. The Left’s relationship with Russia makes Sybil look well-adjusted. One day, they’re our ally and we can trust them when they have information that hurts Donald Trump. The next day, they’re our enemy and we can’t trust them to tell the truth when they have information that hurts them. Complicate is hardly the word for this kind of Jeckyl and Hyde relationship.

Let’s take a closer look at the elephant, or bear in this case, in the room.

Russia

What the Left thinks it means – a country that has aided Donald Trump in stealing the 2016 election and is, therefore, our enemy. Also, a country that wasn’t our enemy when Barack Obama was President.

What it really means – our worst frienemy

There was a time when the Left looked up to the Russians. Usually, it was when the Russians were communists, but that admiration never quite went away. Now, the Left tries to relive the wonder years of the former Soviet Union while making tons of money in the pursuit of it.

Let that sink in for a moment.

On the other side of the aisle, the Right adopted Ronald Reagan’s approach of “trust, but verify.” For a while in the mid 80s and early 90s, the US and Russia had a burgeoning relationship, but that changed when hardcore communists hung around and kept just enough power to remain relevant. Then came the rise of Vladimir “Rudy” Putin. A former KGB member, Putin didn’t want the former Soviet Union to die out completely and adopted many of the same draconian ideas that were popular in the Soviet Union. (Oddly enough, college Leftists are adopting those same ideas today.) As a result, the Right went back to not trusting Russia.

This conflict of approaches came to a head during a 2012 Presidential debate between Republican Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama. While Romney warned people of the threat Russia posed, Obama brushed it off with a comment about the 80s wanting their foreign policy back. Good times. Of course, that was before the Left lost the 2016 election while collaborating with the Russians, so naturally the Russians are bad guys now, right?

Well, actually, they are, but unlike the Left, my distrust of Russia isn’t situational nor political. Call it my Cold War Spidey Sense, but whenever you have a former member of the KGB heading up a former enemy turned fairweather friend, it tends not to end well. And unfortunately our foreign policy has been slow to pick up on this. Then again, when you’ve had Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, two of the most ineffective and unintelligent Secretaries of State in recent memory, heading up foreign policy, I’m amazed Russia hasn’t already taken over the country. (Note to the Leftists who think this has already happened, respond to this column so I can send you money to buy a clue.)

Meanwhile, we still have the Russian threat to address, and they have friends. I’m speaking of China, another geopolitical thorn in our side. China and Russia haven’t always gotten along, but in recent years they’ve found a common enemy in America. Let’s just say these two countries wouldn’t be too heartbroken if we got knocked down a peg or 20, and both countries have a means to do just that with enough provocation. China owns a lot of our debt, and Russia has a significant oil reserve. Combine those two, and you have the makings of an America economic disaster that would make the mortgage crisis of 2008 look like you lost a nickel down a sewer grate.

And it’s not like this is a new phenomenon, either. Russia and China have been getting chummy for a few years now, including when a certain President mocked Mitt Romney’s prescient warning as being an outdated concept. Yeah, now the party of that President now thinks Russia is a bad guy because they believe (falsely) Russia cost their 2016 candidate the Presidency. (Yeah, it totally has nothing to do with the fact she was unlikable, inept, and couldn’t seem to find Wisconsin on a map…of Wisconsin.) Now that their own connections to Russia are coming to light, the Left isn’t so keen on digging into the situation further, but they are totally on board with continuing the investigation into the Trump-Russia connection to the point Don Quixote is telling them to seek help.

And while all of this political theater is going on, Russia is biding its time, waiting for the moment when they can drop the hammer. And possibly the sickle, too.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Did you know you’re oppressed? Oh, you may not think you are, but you totally are! At least, that’s what the Left wants you to believe. Yep, in one of the most affluent and relatively freest countries in the world, you are literally under the thumb of The Man.

Meanwhile in the real world, we live in a world where the most oppression most of us face is having to wait for the microwave to reheat our food. Maybe the Left has a very liberal (pardon the pun) definition of oppression.

So, let’s take a look at it.

oppression

What the Left thinks it means – a systematic attack on minorities and people without power by people with power, usually white men

What it really means – something we here in America really don’t experience as often as the Left wants us to believe

In the grand scheme of things, everyone goes through hardships, ranging from family issues to being seen in a Justin Bieber shirt during Sturgis. What separates hardships from oppression is who is causing the hardships. If you can point to an actual person who is devoting his/her life to making your life crap, you might be oppressed. If you can’t, you might be overstating your problems and creating a Boogeyman with less substance than a Paris Hilton novel. Or a Paris Hilton Post-It-Note, for that matter.

One of the cornerstones of Leftist ideology is everyone is a victim, except if you’re a straight white male. And if you don’t see it, it’s because you’ve “internalized” the oppression and, thus, are used to it. In other words, if you don’t see what oppression the Left says you’re experiencing, you’re dumb.

And the Left wonders why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 Presidential election using that same line of thinking…

The key to this approach is getting potential victims to believe they’re being oppressed. For most people, that’s hard to do, but for those who lean Left or who have been filled with Leftist dogma for years (thanks, public education system), it’s much easier. I can speak directly to this, being a recovering Leftist.

When you’re a Leftist, you are lead to believe everything sucks, but it’s not your fault. In order to maintain both illusions, Leftists create faceless villains, dark conspiracies, and more enabling than a bad AA sponsor. It’s easy to believe in the existence of a smoke-filled room where the richest 1% plot to screw over the 99% as much as possible so they can make as much money and maintain as much power as possible. If you don’t think I’m right, just listen to any Bernie Sanders supporter discussing economics.

An additional factor that makes the oppression game so successful is youth. When you’re young, your mindset can be molded by those who you trust. That’s why it’s important to understand who is influencing your children. When you pump a young person’s mind from an early age to value fairness (at least as the Left defines it), tell them the world isn’t fair, and offer a solution in the form of a Leftist squawking point, you have a ready-made believer in oppression. (And to think these folks are going to be tomorrow’s leaders. Yay?)

Of course, there’s one big problem with the oppression mindset: we aren’t being oppressed in any real way. What the Left calls oppression, most people call First World Problems. Two gay people can’t get married? That’s not oppression; that’s a missed opportunity for folks in the wedding industry. The gap between the rich and poor too wide for your tastes? That’s not oppression, either. That’s an opportunity to look further into economic trends to see whether the gap is because of people going up or down financially. You know what is oppression? Being female and/or gay in Islamic fundamentalist countries, being intellectually curious in China, and being poor in North Korea, just to name three examples off the top of my heads. Compared to these three examples, the “oppression” the Left sees everywhere is waiting in line at Starbucks behind one other person who knows exactly what he/she wants.

As pervasive as the Left’s approach is, it’s not unbeatable. It’s important to remember we can simultaneously believe we aren’t oppressed and we can still make things better for everyone. Oh, and that Leftist solutions are as useful as IT security advice from Debbie Wasserman Schultz. When you really think about it, we are living in a pretty free country that is also surprisingly free from oppression. Of course, the ones who tend to find oppression under every rock also tend to be the ones who want to add more government regulations, which tend to make things more…oppressive.

Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Once upon a time, Americans could be counted upon to be knowledgeable about our system of government and all the ins and outs of it. Today, you’re more likely to find someone who knows all of the winners of “American Idol” than who can name at least 3 Supreme Court Justices, living or otherwise.

What happened? I blame disco.

Actually, I blame the loss of attention to civics (although I’m not convinced disco didn’t have a hand in it, what with its boogie oogie oogieing and such). Sometime in my lifetime, people stopped caring about our government, which has given rise to a lot of misinformation about the way the government works, or doesn’t work as the case may be. And, as you might guess, the Left benefits from this ignorance in many ways.

So, let’s take a look at the c-word, shall we?

civics

What the Left believes it means – knowledge of our government and its role in our society

What it really means – knowledge of our government and what it’s allowed to do

To see a real-life example of the problem I’m talking about, check out this tweet from Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut.

Important: if Trump stops paying insurers, rates for EVERYBODY go up – not just for people on ACA exchange plans. Get ready, America!

To hear the good…ish Senator tell it, President Donald Trump is going to be kicking old ladies, invalids, and children off their health insurance in the middle of Siberia during the coldest winter season ever. One tiny problem there, Chris: The President doesn’t allocate money. That’s Congress’ job. You know, Congress, that legislative body of which you are a member? And let’s not forget the fact Congress didn’t approve appropriations for these insurance plans, thus they might have been going away faster than the audience at a Yoko Ono concert. Fortunately, some people who understand civics tweeted the truth to him. Unfortunately, too many people bought into the Senator’s tweet without question.

Oh, and did I mention Senator Murphy is a Democrat?

I’m not saying all Democrats are clueless about civics, but let’s just say there are more Democrats who wouldn’t pass a citizenship test than there are who would, even if they were allowed to cheat off the papers of foreigners wanting to become US citizens. Therein lies the crux of the problem: caring enough about America to learn about its system of government. The Left loves America so much it wants to reform it into a more perfect union…under Leftist ideology. And with Leftists like Senator Murphy at the helm, there’s no way it could wind up badly, right?

Yeah. The captains of the Titanic, the Hindenburg, and the Exxon Valdez would like a word with you, Senator.

The Left has a healthy disdain for civics because it establishes we are a nation of laws, meaning American citizens have recourse against individuals and/or the government should there be a beach of law. These laws also establish a process that needs to be followed to address situations, change existing laws, or generally get things done. In other words, civics teaches us the rules of the game. As we’ve seen within the past, oh, year or so, the Left isn’t big on the rules. They think if a rule is unfair (even one agreed upon before the game/election started), it should immediately be nullified and their preferred result be accepted. Put another way, the Left believes we should be a nation of whims instead of law. That would be like letting a seven-year-old have a no-limit credit card and releasing him or her in a toy store.

Or, like Congress right now.

The thing to remember when dealing with Leftists and their ignorance of civics is they will make up any reasoning they need to in order to advance their ideas. Take the nonsense with the 25th Amendment, for example. The Left keeps bringing it up as an option to remove President Trump and demanding Republicans and the Trump Cabinet act on it to put the country before the GOP. Although the Left sounds intelligent on this subject, they aren’t. In order for their whims to be made real, it would require a majority of Trump’s Cabinet to send something to Congress in writing stating President Trump was unfit to serve. That would mean the Left would be using the rule of law to force the rule of whims, all under the guise of loving the country and the process.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Left’s push for the 25th Amendment being invoked is the definition of putting party above country, not the reverse, and it shows their contempt for civics as a whole. Whether it’s their support of Black Lives Matter (especially the ones who want to kill police officers) or their belief impeaching Donald Trump would automatically install Hillary Clinton as President, I can’t believe it’s ignorance at this point. They simply do not care about the way things are done, nor are they interested in the process to change the way things are done. The Left prefers to undermine the country and the rule of law through open contempt and subtle propaganda than to play by the rules as written. And let’s not forget, it wasn’t that long ago that Democrats had control of Congress and the White House, but they didn’t bother to try to change the rules. They decided to act on their whims, which gave us Obamacare, and I think we know how poorly that worked out, right?

The way to combat this is to bone up on your civics and share your knowledge. You won’t be able to convince the Senator Murphys of the world, but you may be able to convince people who are on the fence. These are the people who are key to making civics cool again, or at least cooler than it is now. Then, it will be harder for the Senate Murphys of the world to pretend they know what they’re doing because there will more and more people calling them out on their distortions.

Share This:

 

The Producer Has No Clothes

To say Harvey Weinstein has had a bad week would be an understatement of epic proportions. For those of you with lives outside of Hollyweird, Weinstein has been accused of the sexual assault of several women over the past 20-30 years, some of those women being high profile Hollywood heavy hitters. At first, these celebrities were hesitant to say anything, but once Weinstein came forward to confirm the allegations, the floodgates opened.

If this were just a Hollywood story, I would be ignoring it like, well, most of what Hollywood puts out these days, but as you might expect, there is a political element. Seems Mr. Weinstein was a big donor in Democrat circles, including a certain 2016 candidate who said women were to be believed. Wonder what happened to her…

And if you thought Hollywood acted slowly to condemn Weinstein, the Left makes Hollywood look like The Flash on a million triple espressos. Or three million single espressos. Either way, the Left finds itself in an odd situation: denounce a major donor, or let the self-professed “Party of Women” look like hypocrites. Granted, the Left has no problem with looking like hypocrites, but this one might be a bridge too far for them.

I have been keeping track of the Twitterverse, because I have no real life, and the Left seems to be content circling the wagons and attacking anyone who dares to speak out against Weinstein and the Left’s inertia on dealing with the political fallout. Their favorite response seems to be “But Trump.” Well, I hate to break it to you, but the two situations aren’t comparable. Trump’s statements on tape were just that: statements. It has not been established he has acted upon those sentiments. Weinstein, on the other hand, did act, which nullifies any comparisons to Trump, no matter how much you wish Trump had committed sexual assault.

Okay, I have to admit something. I lied. I totally loved breaking it to you.

This is an opportunity for Democrats to reassess their position on women and sexual assault. It’s fine to say victims should be believed, but when you know someone in your ranks treats women like Ike treated Tina, your silence doesn’t help the situation. And if what I’ve seen and heard is to be believed, there are a lot of Democrats and Leftists who knew about Weinstein and did nothing until it was “safe” to do so. Great moral courage there, kids. Tell us again how Donald Trump is a bad guy because he said something sexist.

When you put your ideals aside in favor of campaign cash, you’re a sell out. And when you decide money is more important than protecting victims of sexual assault, you are enabling the abusers with your silence.

Let’s get one thing crystal clear here, folks. A “Party of Women”, self-professed or otherwise, has an obligation to talk the talk and walk the walk. Right now, Lt. Dan is doing more walking than you on the Left is. It is inexcusable you Leftists even have to question the right thing to do in this situation, especially considering you let another sexual predator, Bill Clinton, off the hook. And Slick Willie isn’t the only one. Remember Ted Kennedy? Eliot Spitzer? Anthony Weiner? Yeah, you might want to hold off on the “Party of Women” talk until you figure out how to condemn the deviants on your side of the aisle.

As far as Weinstein is concerned, he is a scumbag and deserves far more than he’s bound to get, either from the courts, his peers in Hollywood, or his pals in Washington, DC. This isn’t a time when we can pick a partisan side and defend it. If we don’t condemn predators on the Left and the Right, the cycle of sexual victimhood will continue, grinding even more unfortunate women and men under its weight.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This past week we saw another mass shooting, this one in Las Vegas. As of the date of this writing, 59 people died and over 500 people were injured. As a result, the Left in its infinite opportunism has renewed a push for stronger gun control laws because, let’s face it, the laws we already have on the books have been so effective.

For any Leftists reading this, that was sarcasm.

What has stopped Leftists from enacting more (and most likely ineffective and/or duplicate) gun laws? Why, it’s the gun lobby, that secret cabal that includes the National Rifle Association, Congressional Republicans, gun manufacturers, and the New England Patriots. (Actually, I’m not sure about that last one, but I figured I’d throw it in there since people seem to hate the Patriots.) If you believe the Left, the gun lobby makes it impossible to pass common sense gun laws like…well, they haven’t told us yet, but they totally know! Let’s peer behind the curtain and see just how evil the gun lobby is.

gun lobby

What the Left believes it means – an organized group of politicians, lobbyists, gun manufacturers, and other conservatives who put profit above human life

What it actually means – people who think the Second Amendment is worth preserving

The Second Amendment is one of the most misinterpreted concepts in the Constitution, but it doesn’t have to be. The short version is this: people who want them can have guns. That’s it.

Of course, if you believe that, you’re part of the evil gun lobby. Then again, just about anything short of being to the left of Nancy Pelosi could make you a part of the gun lobby because it’s not about whether you’re John Wayne or Wayne Newton when it comes to guns. It’s more about finding a way to demonize opponents as a means to make the Left look sensible by comparison. As a matter of fact, “sensible” is one of their favorite buzzwords along with “common sense.” After all, when you paint your opponents as Yosemite Sam on crack, anything you suggest is going to look better by comparison.

Of course, it’s all for show.

Just like with the Left’s attacks on Wall Street, the mortgage banks, pharmaceutical companies, and any number of Boogeymen-du-joirs, they need to dehumanize their opposition by making them generic and, thus, indistinguishable from one another. Dana Loesch and I both support gun ownership, but we’re vastly different people. For example, she’s attractive, well-known, well-off, and a TV and radio show host, while I’m…none of those things, but I do have a good set of gams. Yet, the Left considers Mrs. Loesch and me to be indistinguishable. (And she would really get the short end of the stick on that deal.) But, by making us uniform, the Left makes it easier to dismiss a wider swath of Second Amendment supporters.

Of course, it doesn’t make their arguments any better.

By creating the myth of an all-powerful gun lobby, the Left seeks to cover up its own incompetence. After all, what better way to explain the Left’s failure to enact gun control laws they want (and actually had the ability to pass under President Barack Obama) than to suggest there’s a conspiracy that is preventing them from doing it? It may keep money coming into their coffers, but it speaks volumes about how ineffective their pushes have been. Or, perhaps, it speaks volumes about how far they’re willing to go to hamstring actual reform to keep the money coming in. After all, Leftists aren’t really in the problem solving business because once a problem is solved, the money and power that can be derived from the problem go away faster than Colin Kaepernick’s employment opportunities in the NFL. So, to cover up their agenda, the Left make emotional appeals combined with poll numbers sketchier than a book of doodles by Steve Buschemi.

Compare that to the people lumped together as the “gun lobby.” Some are shady players because we’re dealing with politics here, but most are average Americans like you and me whose only goal is to preserve the Second Amendment. We really have nothing to gain by advancing false narratives or giving silent or vocal support for the bad players on our side. We’re not paid by the NRA or Smith and Wesson or the Koch Brothers for taking the stand we do…although I wouldn’t object to a little bit of scratch for my support of the Second Amendment. Just sayin’.

Now, here’s a little tidbit of information the Left doesn’t want you to know. With the recent mass shootings being blamed on the “gun lobby,” how many were actually committed by people the Left considers to be part of it? Ten? Twenty? Thirty? The correct answer is a grand total of a whopping…zero. Zilch. Nada. Goose egg. The big bagel. The number of times Hillary Clinton has accepted responsibility for her 2016 campaign disaster.

Now, what do the mass shooters have in common, aside from using firearms to cause chaos? Most, if not all, of them either passed the background checks or, in the case of those like Adam Lanza, circumvented the background check process by stealing the guns used. Now, who keeps pushing background checks as a good first step towards gun control? Who could it possibly be?

Hint: It’s the people who want you to believe the gun lobby wants kids to die because guns.

When you boil it down, the Left needs to create a negative image of Second Amendment supporters as part of an evil cabal so they can present themselves as knights in shining armor. But to advance that idea requires them to lie, distort, and play on people’s emotions rather than, you know, actually living up to their self-branding, which puts them in a bind when someone or a group of someones stands up to the knights and reveals them to be bullies in whining armor. When picking sides in this debate over gun rights, remember there is one side who treats you like an adult and one side who thinks you aren’t responsible enough to own a spoon, let alone a gun. But only one side thinks you’re conspiring against them without proof of such.

If I have to be in a group of people, I’ll stand with the “gun lobby.” Not only will they respect my right to own or not own a gun, but they’re armed.

Share This:

 

Time to Put on Some Pants

Winston Churchill is alleged to have said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” And in the case of Bill Clinton, the lie may get further.

Why do I bring this up other than to take yet another shot at the Commander in Briefs? Well, it’s because of an app that has become the bane of my existence, even though I don’t use it: Twitter. The reason I haven’t joined the Twitterverse is simple. I don’t have the time or energy to engage in trying to stop people from spreading misinformation, and I’m just not that into selfies or taking pictures of my meals.

Back in my day, it took a lot longer for a lie to be picked up and turned into fact. Remember the urban myth the ships on Snapple Tea labels were slave ships? Although it’s still believed in some pockets of society today, the fact it took so long for it to even take root was a testament to not only the simpler time of the early 90s, but the fact-checking people did back then. Thanks to Twitter, both of these fail safes are more obsolete than Compuserve.

Take the outrage over President Donald Trump’s response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. If you read Twitter (and I wouldn’t recommend it without some adult beverages), you would think President Trump is sitting on his hands (which would make it really hard to Tweet) and not helping Puerto Rico for every reason from racism to not knowing Puerto Rico is one of our territories. In reality, though, federal assistance has been on site since before Maria hit. We can argue about whether it’s sufficient, but to say the Trump Administration and Trump specifically has done nothing is blatantly incorrect.

Yet, the Twitterverse will repeat the lie while the truth is putting on its pants.

Since the beginning of the year, I’ve lost count of the number of media outlets who have tweeted juicy stories about President Trump, only to have to tweet a retraction within hours or days. While it’s nice to see these media outlets posting retractions, there are a few problems I have with it. First, rarely do these media outlets delete the initial erroneous Tweets. That in and of itself may seem like a minor quibble, but when you consider the number of people who will believe the original Tweet and won’t dig further into it, the fact the Tweet is allowed to exist after it’s been discredited gives it credibility. It’s like Bernie Sanders’ “democratic socialism” idea, but with 140 characters.

Second, rarely, if ever, are these corrections retweeted. The same people who are eager to pounce on any negative opinion of the Trump Administration (confirmation bias, anyone?) aren’t so quick to retweet a correction. Those who do are at least trying to be transparent with their rhetoric or are already quick to defend the Trump Administration. Those who don’t have more axes to grind than Paul Bunyon. They would prefer to believe the comfortable lie than the uncomfortable truth.

Third, and finally, Twitter isn’t known for its fairness. For those of you with lives, Twitter gives out blue checkmarks for people whose accounts can be verified as actually being owned by the people who claim they have them. What goes into this verification process is a mystery, but what is obvious is the blue checkmarks are handed out like drug samples at a dealer convention if the owner is a Leftist, but you’re out of luck if you’re a conservative. I’m beginning to think the Catholic Church’s qualifications for sainthood are easier to achieve than a conservative getting a verified Twitter account. With this checkmark comes credibility, earned or…well, let’s face it, it’s never earned. It’s an electronic Cracker Jack box where the right ideology gets you a free prize inside.

But we all know Leftists would never lie or distort the truth for political gain, right?

Put simply, Twitter is a quick way to widely push a narrative, spin a story, or blatantly lie without a way to be just as quick and widespread with the truth. But, it’s important we continue to tell the truth whenever we can. Facts matter.

Now, go put on some pants.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you’ve been following this weekly column for a while, there are two things that become clear. One, there’s a legitimate reason I don’t get paid to do this. And, two, the Left loves to play around with the definition of words. And, boy, do I have an Inception-level entry for the Leftist Lexicon for you this week.

When you think of violence, what do you envision? Rioting? Arson? A typical day at UC Berkeley when someone to the right of Lenin decides to express an opinion? Well, according to the Left, you’re right and wrong. (I told you this was Inception-level. You might want to get a stiff drink before continuing. Or fifty.) You see, the Left both loves and hates violence depending on the circumstances, and have even included the purposeful misgendering of trans people as an act of violence.

Come to think of it, I might need a stiff drink or fifty.

Strap in, kids, and keep your drinks close.

violence

What the Left thinks it means – an act or thought that causes physical or emotional harm

What it really means – an act that causes actual physical harm

As you may have noticed, the Left’s definition of violence includes thoughts and emotions, not just actions. By extending the definition in this way, the Left is attempting to expand the intellectual battlefield to include an area where it can get a foothold. And when you give the Left an inch, they’ll whine until they get a mile. And then they’ll whine until they get two, and before you know it, they’ve overrun the property, the property value goes down, and you have to move to the suburbs to get some peace and quiet.

Let’s be clear here. Violence isn’t anything you can think or feel. It requires action that causes actual harm to someone or something. Calling a trans person by his/her wrong name doesn’t quite meet that standard. Making you feel bad isn’t the same as making you feel bad because you were hit in the head with a bike lock.

That brings us to the Left’s other opinion on violence: it’s totes cool as long as it’s done for the right reasons. Meaning, as long as the Left agrees with the violence being committed. That covers everything Antifa does because they’re fighting fascists or people they can call fascists. Funny how that works out, isn’t it? Meanwhile, any violence committed by the Right is a complete no-no. After all, they don’t agree with the Left, so their violence is totally bad, man.

We shouldn’t be surprised by this partisan double standard, considering it comes from the Left. They can justify anything, including illegal activity, by invoking the “it’s the right thing to do” argument. Need to justify abortion? It’s the right thing to do to prevent overpopulation! Diverting federal funds to needless programs with no actual benefits to the world? It’s the right thing to do to keep jobs in America or to advance scientific knowledge! So, when it comes to causing mayhem, property damage, and various injuries to others, the Left has their ready-made excuse handy. After all, isn’t it the right thing to do to punch a Nazi?

Not so much.

The problem with violence is it encourages more violence. Sure, Antifa can come with baseball bats, pipes, and any number of hand weapons, and it will work out for a time. However, there comes a time when the victims of violence may respond with violence. And given some of the particulars opposing Antifa, such as…oh, I don’t know…white nationalists/supremacists who already have a history of having more of a hair trigger than a .45 in an unkempt barber shop…well, let’s just say it’s only a matter of time before that violence winds up with a body count.

And let’s not forget there were Leftists saying there would be injuries on both sides after Donald Trump was elected. Yeah, it’s one thing to say it, but another thing to experience it. Antifa may think they’re Chuck Norris dressed in black and wearing masks, but once bullets start flying, I guarantee they’ll be closer to Chuck Todd than Chuck Norris.

The sad thing? It shouldn’t come to this. Violence, politically motivated or otherwise, should be a non-starter for anyone wishing to change the political landscape. You want change? Make a better argument, don’t make a fist and start swinging.

And redefining violence so non-violence is no different than what Antifa is doing doesn’t help matters any, either. What you’re doing is diminishing actual violence. When misgendering a trans person causes the same physical damage as a bike lock to the head, then we’ll talk. Until then, take a long look at what you’re advocating and see it through to its logical extreme. If you think violence is okay for purely partisan ends, you cannot complain when others use that same approach against you. Oh, I’m sure you will, but you won’t have a leg to stand on when you do.

And in this case, it may not just be figuratively speaking.

Share This:

 

Take a Knee on Taking a Knee

This past weekend saw NFL players taking a knee or not coming out for the Star Spangled Banner during football games, and both Left and Right went ballistic. The Left cried “free speech” (along with “Trump is a racist/sexist/homophobe/islamophobe/phobe-du-joir), and the Right cried “disrespect.” So, where does your favorite free speech loving, ruggedly handsome independent blogger stand on kneeling?

To put it mildly and in the form of a Facebook relationship status, it’s complicated.

Both sides of this controversy have good points, and both are completely wrong. (Told ya it was complicated.) The football players who decided to protest have a right to express themselves in the ways they did. You may not agree with why they were protesting, but it’s not even up for debate: they have the right to protest.

The people saying their protest was disrespectful to America, the flag, and our fighting men and women are correct. I see it as only slightly less offensive than Michael Moore’s eating habits. But free speech isn’t limited to speech we like. If we limit free speech only to speech we like, we could be looking at a situation where only a handful of people (probably people who post cute dog and cat pictures on the Internet) would be allowed to speak, and even they would be able to be silenced with a single complaint.

So, where exactly do I stand? In favor of free speech for the protesters, and the protesters of the protesters. In a situation like this, I will always opt for whatever guarantees the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum number of people because the alternative sucks. When you put a lot of power in the hands of only a few, abuse occurs. Case in point: the IRS under Lois Lerner. Or the IRS in general.

But I do hope the protesters are open to having their actions criticized in the name of the same free speech they cloak themselves in when it suits their needs. Otherwise, their concern for free speech/protest would look rather…superficial.

Share This: